Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been dragged into a political row after Reform UK used his remarks about Britain being colonised by immigrants in a campaign video without his permission.
INEOS, Ratcliffe's chemicals giant, confirmed to The Athletic that the billionaire had no knowledge of the video and did not consent to its use. The party's decision to feature one of the country's most prominent businessmen in its campaign material has raised questions about how political parties source and clear endorsements, and about the rights of individuals whose words are repurposed for political ends.
The fallout has been swift. The Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club issued a vote of no confidence in the INEOS chairman, declaring it was time for him to go. The supporters' group said the remarks, and their use in a political campaign, had made his position untenable and had caused deep hurt among Muslim fans of the club.
Ratcliffe's business empire and his role at Manchester United have made him one of the most scrutinised figures in British public life. His investment in the football club placed him at the centre of one of the most passionate fan bases in world sport, where every public statement is dissected and where the relationship between owners and supporters is often fraught.
Reform UK has not publicly responded to the claim that the footage was used without consent. The use of a high-profile businessman's comments in party political material without permission touches on sensitive questions of image rights, political advertising standards and the increasingly blurred line between public commentary and campaign content.
For Manchester United, the episode is an unwelcome distraction at a time when the club can ill afford one. The ownership has been a source of division among supporters for years, and the latest row has only deepened the tensions between the INEOS leadership and sections of the fan base who feel their voices are not being heard.
The row comes at a sensitive moment for Reform UK, which has been working to professionalise its campaign operation and broaden its appeal. The use of Ratcliffe's remarks without permission is an embarrassment the party could have done without, and it raises questions about the vetting of campaign materials. For Ratcliffe, one of Britain's richest men, the episode is a reminder of the scrutiny that comes with his profile. His every public utterance is now weighed for political meaning, whether he intends it or not. INEOS's swift denial suggests the billionaire is keen to keep his distance from party politics, particularly on an issue as charged as immigration.